Specification for the Derivation of Root Keys from an Extended Master Session Key (EMSK)
draft-ietf-hokey-emsk-hierarchy-07

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    hokey mailing list <hokey@ietf.org>, 
    hokey chair <hokey-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Specification for the Derivation of 
         Root Keys from an Extended Master Session Key (EMSK)' to 
         Proposed Standard 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Specification for the Derivation of Root Keys from an Extended Master 
   Session Key (EMSK) '
   <draft-ietf-hokey-emsk-hierarchy-08.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Handover Keying Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Tim Polk and Pasi Eronen.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hokey-emsk-hierarchy-08.txt

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

  An Extended Master Session Key (EMSK) is a cryptographic key
  generated from an Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) exchange
  reserved solely for the purpose of deriving master keys for one or
  more purposes identified as usage definitions.  This memo specifies a
  mechanism for avoiding conflicts between root keys by deriving
  cryptographically separate keys from the EMSK.  This document also
  describes a usage for domain specific root keys made available to and
  used within specific key management domains.

Working Group Summary

  The document represents rough consensus of the working group.  There
  is one issue where significant disagreements remain: the key hierarchy
  is richer than required to support  the hokey protocols.  Some working
  group participants felt the DSRK should be removed from this
  specification, leaving the definition to be defined when protocols that
  require a richer hierarchy are developed.  Other participants felt that
  specifying a rich hierarchy at this time was prudent.  They also felt
that removing features at this stage would create an unreasonable delay. 

  The AD reviewed recent traffic on the email list and believes that
rough
consensus exists to support progression of the current draft.

Document Quality

  This document has been reviewed extensively and the Document Shepherd 
  believes it to be of high quality.

Personnel

  Charles Clancy is the document shepherd.   The responsible Area 
  Director is Tim Polk.

RFC Editor Note